What Is the Strategic Role of Online Newspapers?
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Nordicom Review 27 (2006) 2, pp. 285-297
What Is the Strategic Role
of Online Newspapers?
ARNE H. KRUMSVIK
Abstract
The newspapers are in a pressed situation of circulation decline. This is partly a conse-
quence of increased Internet usage, a development the papers themselves have helped push
forward. This survey reveals that Norwegian newspapers executives do not approve fully
of their own organizations’ online activities, and explores their rationale for online pub-
lishing: Is it marketing of the print product, the development of new business, or are the
newspapers still in an explorative mode?
Key Words: newspaper, online newspaper, strategy, Internet, management, economics.
Introduction
This survey reveals that Norwegian newspapers executives do not approve fully of their
own organizations’ online activities. In order to understand this lack of satisfaction with
their new ventures, it is important to understand their rationale for online publishing: Is
it marketing of the print product, the development of new business, or are the newspa-
pers still in an explorative mode? These questions form the center of this article, which
outlines the critical developments challenging this industry through the digitalization of
news distribution and which explores Norwegian newspaper executives’ perceptions of
the strategic role of their online newspapers. The discussion of the situation ten years
after the occurrence of the online newspaper phenomenon is conducted within the theo-
retical framework of strategic management, applying Miles and Snow’s classic model
for the analysis of the strategy, structure and processes of organizations1.
From Experiment to Problematic Success2: The First Online Newspapers
News has been online since the 1970s. The first newspaper service on America Online
was launched by the Chicago Tribune in May 1992. But not until 1995 was the online
newspaper concept of today developed, featuring among others CNN as a global news
engine. Six years later, in April 2001, American trade journal Editor & Publisher Inter-
active had registered in its database 12,878 news media online (Deuze 2001; Rasmussen
2002:33).
1995 was the year in which public Internet usage had its breakthrough in the entire
Western world, largely due to a simpler “point-and-click” interface for the World Wide
283Web. In Norway, Telepost Communications3 and Oslonett4 provided Internet access to private users, and both had about 10,000 customers by the year’s end. The challenge to suppliers of Internet access was the lack of Norwegian content to be used in marketing the new service. Telepost invited Dagbladet (single copy sales, nationally distributed tabloid) online at a very low cost, to provide attractive content for its own site. The web address testi- fies to the fact that it might not have been the purpose for users to type the entire URL directly: http://www.telepost.no/dagbl@det.no/. “Electronic newspapers are so far no serious competition to print papers. But we are on the brink of an information revolution and we want to be part of it”, said Dagbladet’s Presentation Editor, Ove Monsen, to the business tabloid Dagens Næringsliv5. The Oslo-based subscription newspaper Aftenposten had launched an unofficial test version online, but had it removed in connection with Dagbladet’s launch. The slogan “always ahead” (“alltid foran”) nevertheless had to be set aside as web-enthusiast and editor of Brønnøysunds Avis, Petter Stephan Krokaa, made sure the five-day local news- paper from the middle of Norway launched its online edition on 6 March 1995, just two days ahead of Dagbladet’s heavily advertised online debut. Krokaa informed Dagens Næringsliv6 that the publication at http://www.nordnett.no/ ~ba/ cost him a mere half hour of work every day, and that the electronic version prob- ably had more readers than the printed issue, which had a circulation of 5,000 copies. VG (single copy sales, nationally distributed tabloid) brought forth its online edition on 10 October 1995. And even though Dagbladet relaunched a more news-focused is- sue the day before, it did not keep the country’s largest daily from taking the lead online as well. A solid brand and interactive services were its main weapons7. Ten Years of Norwegian Online Newspapers Sigurd Høst has kept a register on the development in the number of online newspapers since 1996, and “following a certain amount of hesitation in 1995 (only 17 newspapers registered online by February 1996), a quick expansion came in 1996. Then came three years of relatively slow growth until activities boomed once more in 2000” (Høst 2001:18-19, my translation). This boom was also echoed in media coverage of this new area in the media landscape. Year Number of online newspapers* “Nettavis” in Atekst** 1995 17 1 1996 72 87 1997 74 331 1998 102 481 1999 120 511 2000 157 1 456 2001 201 1 775 2002 - 1 519 2003 212 1 684 2004 - 1 803 *Registration at the end of the year, except 1995, which has registration data from February 1996 (Høst 2004:26). ** Search for “nettavis” (online newspaper) in the Norwegian search database Atekst. 284
By the end of 2000, there were 157 newspapers online, and out of these 126 offered a
news service as part of its output.
AS Avishuset Dagbladet started the new millennium by establishing DB Medialab
AS, a sister company to AS Dagbladet, responsible for its activities in digital media.
As early as 1999, The New York Times had already separated its online activities into
a separate company. One of its intentions was to take advantage of the high value esti-
mate and collect external capital to finance further growth8.
Separating online activities into separate companies served to make visible its val-
ues to the market, increasing the value of the owners’ shares. And while print papers
were marked by processes of efficiency improvement, the spirit of entrepreneurship was
cultivated in new media.
The largest newspaper in Scandinavia, Aftonbladet (single copy sales, nationally
distributed Swedish tabloid), also separated its online edition into Aftonbladet Nya
Medier AB in 1999, with separate Editor-in-Chief and Managing Director. Shorter de-
cision-making paths enabled the company to develop faster than what had been possi-
ble in the mother company.
Dagbladet chose an intermediate solution, with an Editor-in-Chief in common and
shared locations for editorial resources. At the same time, increased risk could be taken
within a separate corporation.
The trend of separation spread to other major Norwegian newspaper companies, such
as VG, Aftenposten and Stavanger Aftenblad (a regional subscription-based newspaper).
Web optimism reached its peak in 2000, followed by a crack at the American
NASDAQ stock exchange. The newspapers’ competence in downsizing was now made
serviceable in their online companies as well. But even though investors got cold feet
and advertising income temporarily decreased, it did not halt the growth in online news-
paper usage. VG’s online edition surpassed the print editions of both Aftenposten and
Dagbladet measured by readership in 20049. And in 2005, the online newspaper busi-
ness received more demand for advertising space than they could offer.
The maturing of the online newspaper market measured by the number of print news-
papers with their own respective online editions does not follow a classic diffusion
curve, and Sigurd Høst emphasizes two explanatory variables:
If we compare the pattern of diffusion (...) with the ideal-typical S-curve for
diffusion (...), it is most notably the fast growth in 1996 which does not fit. Instead
of waiting to see what would happen, as many papers did in 1997-1999 (...),
many were now anxious to get on early. The explanation is both that they were
afraid of being surpassed by the technological development (‘being left on the
platform as the train leaves’), and that it was possible to create a fairly decent
Internet service at a low cost (Høst 2004:14, my translation).
In addition, the launch of Nettavisen.no in 1996 made a significant impact, contribut-
ing to changing the market structure.
The Change in the Role as News Provider10
Newspapers were part of a world in which they could pull out the “Exclusive” heading
every time they were reasonably certain they were the only ones who covered a specific
story or interviewed a specific person. Citations in radio news worked as pure adver-
285tising for the exclusive story, and this interplay continued until the story perhaps was
picked up by the evening news on television.
This situation was dramatically changed with the introduction of Nettavisen.no. The
entrepreneurs lacked proper funding to launch a new printed paper, and a central part
of the business idea was to function as a meta medium in relation to newspapers. By sys-
tematically surveying and citing the most interesting stories published in the print media
every day, Nettavisen, despite its limited resources and within a short period of time,
was able to offer complete news coverage, previously only available through the larg-
est newspapers. On top of that, Nettavisen spiced things up with a few self-produced
stories, often quite elegantly developed to make the evening news. In this way, television
played the same part in promoting Nettavisen that radio had played in relation to news-
papers.
This is where the serious trouble began for the national newspapers. After some time,
Nettavisen’s breadth constituted a substitute for the omnibus print paper, instead of
promoting the original messenger of the particular piece of news. The newspapers re-
sponded by increasing efforts in their own online editions and thus reinforced the effect.
The news battle was no longer about 24 hours, but about minutes. This was strengthened
by the fact that editors publicized the exact time a story was made public. The news
competition was given preference over experimenting with new forms of expression and
developing the characteristics of the new medium. The new channel was also well suited
to news transmission, given its ability to continuously combine the advantages of news-
papers, radio and television through the use of multimedia.
In 1995, most newspapers had to ask themselves whether this was in fact a case of
cannibalism, but the concerns had to be put aside in favor of looking at the realities of
the competition on the market. A year after the birth of online newspapers, the propor-
tions were still so comfortably on the side of the mother publications that the introduc-
tion of Nettavisen was perceived as no threat to their financial situation. But as usage
of online publications has reached a critical mass, the large media companies have been
busy developing their online editions as supplementary products and not substitutes.
VG announced hasty measures when publicizing a drop in circulation in 2004. Fea-
ture articles, consumer articles and columns were now to be withheld from online pub-
lication or granted exclusivity on paper for a period of time. Dagbladet also announced
their policy not to publicize its cover story online, while DN’s online edition long had
to be content with competing with Nettavisen over citations from its own print sister.
Now, all online papers cite each other, and the problem for print papers that wish to
withhold stories from their online editions is that the readers may now find the story in
its online rival, and not where it would be logical to start the search. It is precisely the
good, exclusive stories that one wishes to withhold. The problem is that these are also
the ones that will be cited.
In an attempt to address the dilemma that arises when new media grow from older
ones, Dagbladet, at the end of the previous century, announced a strategy to shift atten-
tion “from occurrence to context” (“fra hendelse til sammenheng”). The problem of
always being ahead on this occasion is that circulation took a fall due to a lower news
temperature in the paper edition. And Editor-in-Chief Harald Stanghelle adjusted his
rhetoric to: “occurrence and context” (“hendelse og sammenheng”). The newspapers’
strong standing online in Norway and Sweden is unique compared to most other mar-
kets in the world. The dynamics that followed the launch of Nettavisen, a peculiarly
Norwegian phenomenon, is a partial explanation for the situation in Norway.
286It follows that there are few international benchmarks in the search for answers to the
questions that arise when the channels are equal in audience reach, but have very dif-
ferent earning capacities.
The exclusive piece of news no longer exists. And at the same time, the newspapers’
role as market place is being challenged. The question that newspaper makers have to
find an answer to is: What are the qualities and characteristics of newspapers that will
have to be developed and emphasized in order to maintain the strong position of the
product in the everyday lives of readers?
The days of Nettavisen as an independent outsider are gone after it was acquired by
the TV 2 Group and became part of TV 2’s website. But all those who dream of a joint
effort to charge readers of online newspapers need to reconsider the potential that mar-
ket players in the free newspapers, such as Swedish Metro, would see in such a situa-
tion. In Norway, people are awaiting one of the most digitally sophisticated markets in
Europe, according to Jupiter Research11. And here there is no paper edition to defend.
To the media corporations, which, according to Dagens Næringsliv’s figures in Sep-
tember 200412, have invested more than two billion NOK in accumulated online loss, the
question is whether they have achieved their goals. Indeed, even more online operations
can give rise to operating margins that their mother companies can only dream of, but
because the money runs out fast at the other end, the joy over good online figures is only
muted.
Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Companies’ adjustments to altered external conditions constitute complex and dynamic
processes (Picard 2000, 2003; Kolo, C. & Vogt, P. 2004). In order to analyze such situ-
ations, Miles and Snow developed a model called “the adaptive cycle” (2003:21-28),
an attempt to generalize the psychology at work in the behavior of organizations. Three
main problems are identified: (1) The entrepreneurial problem (domain definition), (2)
The engineering problem (technology), and (3) The administrative problem (structure-
process and innovation).
Figure 1. The Adaptive Cycle
Leading aspect:
Selections of areas
for future innovations THE
THE ENTREPRENEURAL
ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM
PROBLEM Choice of
Lagging aspect: product-market
Rationalization domain
of structure
and process
THE
ENGINEERING
PROBLEM
Choice of technologies
for production
and distribution
287A process of adaptation is likely to work sequentially throughout the three phases, but processes of change may be triggered within all three. However, in the studies conducted by Miles and Snow, it appears that the fastest and most efficient adaptations occur when the right administrative changes are made. By studying different industries, Miles and Snow identify four archetypes. Each of these has its own strategy in responding to changes in the surroundings, and its typical configuration for technology, structure and process consistent with its strategy. Three stable situations are named “Defender”, “Analyzer” and “Prospector”, where the com- pany is competitive over time if organized according to its strategic type. The last cat- egory is called “Reactor” and represents an unstable situation (Miles & Snow 2003:29): 1. Defenders are organizations that have narrow product-margin domains. Top manag- ers in this type of organization are highly expert in their organization’s limited area of operations, but do not tend to search outside their domain for new opportunities. As a result of this narrow focus, these organizations seldom make major adjustments in their technology, structure or methods of operation. Instead, they devote primary attention to improving the efficiency of their existing operations. 2. Prospectors are organizations that almost continually search for market opportuni- ties, and they regularly experiment with potential responses to emerging environmen- tal trends. Thus, these organizations often are the creators of change and uncertainty to which their competitors must respond. However, because of their strong concern for product and market innovation, these organizations are not completely efficient. 3. Analyzers are organizations that operate in two types of product-market domains, one relatively stable, the other changing. In their stable areas, these organizations oper- ate routinely and efficiently through use of formalized structures and processes. In their more turbulent areas, top managers watch their competitors closely for new ideas, and then they rapidly adopt those ideas that appear to be most promising. 4. Reactors are organizations in which top managers frequently perceive change and uncertainty occurring in their organizational environments but are not able to respond effectively. Because this type of organization lacks a consistent strategy-structure relationship, it seldom makes adjustments of any sort until forced to do so by envi- ronmental pressures. Miles and Snow’s model was an important contribution to the development of strategic management as a field of study, founded, inter alias, on the works of Alfred Chandler (1962). Chandler’s analyses of large American enterprises documented how changes in strategy are followed by changes in structure. Miles and Snow’s contribution has been vital in the formation/development of what is known as “the configurational view of strategy”, which explains that there is not an infinite number of alternative routes to- wards the goal, but rather a handful of fundamental alternatives to choose between in order to achieve what one wants. Porter (1980) is among those who, following the typologies developed by Miles and Snow, has presented his set of generic strategies (cost leadership, differentiation and focus) (Hambrick 2003). The chosen model of analysis is developed to understand companies within an industry, and it might therefore be problematic to use it in analysis of the newspaper industry at large. In order to deal with this problem, I will attempt to identify some typical traits in this industry and regard newspapers as a player within the total media industry, that is, within a competi- tive market where different media compete for readers/users and advertisers. 288
The core activity of a newspaper company seems basically to correspond to the
Defenders category. The focus is on publishing a newspaper, and the top executive is
usually an expert on precisely that, besides having worked a long time in the business.
The executives do not actively seek opportunities outside of their domain or line of
business, and the main focus remains on improving management of the core activity. The
large investments that have been made to digitalize the production process seem mostly
to be about producing the same thing in a more efficient way.
However, the digitalization of production, storage and distribution of media content
paves the way for a new understanding of the line of business within which one oper-
ates, and the competition ones partakes in. In this situation, the papers have an advan-
tage because of their rich content and well-established channels for marketing new prod-
ucts and services.
The establishment of online newspapers can be seen as a shift towards the category
Analyzer, with operations in one relatively stable part of the market and one rather un-
stable. In the traditional line of operations the focus is on routine and efficiency, whereas
in the new line of business one seeks to adopt good and promising ideas.
Based on historical development and the typology designed by Miles and Snow, a
hypothesis of Analyzer as the chosen main strategy would seem to be a reasonable sup-
position. The structure and processes of the organization are differentiated in order to
account for both stable and dynamic spheres of activity. Hence, the survey is designed to
give a preliminary assessment of such a hypothesis. First of all, it is vital to discover (1)
whether executives see use of the Internet mainly as an opportunity for their organization,
and (2) what the functions of online priorities are in the company’s strategy to make use
of new opportunities. Also, to fit in a stable situation as Analyzer, (3) a clear formulation
of the strategy and the necessary adjustment of structure and processes are decisive.
The survey was conducted in April 2005 in cooperation with Landslaget for
Lokalaviser (LLA) and Mediebedriftenes Landsforening (MBL). 193 executives (edi-
tors, managing directors and publishers) in Norwegian print papers have responded to
24 questions in an e-mail/web-based questionnaire13. The response rate was 68 per cent,
after two rounds of e-mail reminders. The results are presented in the following section.
The Results
When Norwegian newspaper executives are asked whether they perceive use of the
Internet as a threat or an opportunity, they are more optimistic with regard to their own
paper than when asked about the newspaper business in general.
The Use of Internet Represents The Use of Internet Represents
a Threat to My Newspaper an Opportunity for My Newspaper
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
N=187 Mean=2.54 STD=1.349 N=186 Mean=4.83 STD=1.145
289The Use of Internet Represents The Use of Internet Represents
a Threat to My Newspaper an Opportunity for My Newspaper
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
N=192 Mean=3.01 STD=1.356 N=192 Mean=4.57 STD=1.178
1 = totally disagree. 6 = totally agree
There are no significant differences between papers of different sizes in their view on
the use of Internet in relation to their own operations.
Newspaper executives largely seek to use online newspapers to defend the print edi-
tion’s existing market position.
What are the Functions of the Newspaper’s Online Edition? 14
1. Part of a strategy to provide readers and advertisers with a service in more channels (67%)
2. Marketing the print paper (62%)
3. Defending the market position among readers and advertisers (59%)
4. Providing the paper/company with a contemporary image (52%)
5. Using content from print edition in new channels (47%)
6. Providing the company with new revenue sources (40%)
7. Exploring new opportunities in new media (31%)
Which Function Is the Most Important to the Online Edition?
1. Part of a strategy to provide readers and advertisers with a service in more channels (30%)
2. Defending the market position among readers and advertisers (23%)
3. Marketing the print paper (12%)
4. Providing the paper/company with a contemporary image (8%)
5. Using content from the print edition in new channels (5%)
6. Providing the company with new revenue sources (5%)
7. Exploring new opportunities in new media (3%)
Young readers are the most important target group.
Which Target Group Is the Most Important to the Paper’s Online Edition?*
1. Young readers (51%)
2. New readers (40%)
3. New advertisers (27%)
4. Existing readers (11%)
5. Existing advertisers (11%)
6. Elderly readers (5%)
* = the percentage that considers this target group to be especially important. Multiple answers permitted.
Top executives are only partly satisfied with the online operations of the newspaper.
Most of them feel the online papers should charge users.
290All in All, How Satisfied Are
You with the Newspaper’s Online Online Newspapers
Activities Today? Should Charge Their Users
50
45
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
N = 165. Mean = 3.39. STD = 1.135. editors (N=120 Mean=4.28 STD=1.696)
1 =not satisfied. 6 = very satisfied. managers (N=66 Mean=4.79 STD=1.494)
T-test: p=0.045.
1 = totally disagree. 6 = totally agree.
Executives of the largest newspaper (circulation 40,000+) are more satisfied with their
online operations than executives of small newspapers (circulation up to 10,000).
60
55
50
45
40 Under 5000
35
5-10 000
30
25 10-40 000
20 40 000+
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Descriptives
Alt i alt, hvor fornøyd er du med avisens nettaktiviteter i dag?
(1=lite fornøyd, 6=svært godt fornøyd)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper Mini- Maxi-
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound mum mum
Under 5 000 53 3,19 1,316 ,181 2,83 3,55 1 6
5 000-10 000 49 3,29 ,890 ,127 3,03 3,54 1 5
10 000-40 000 51 3,49 1,138 ,159 3,17 3,81 1 6
Over 40 000 12 4,33 ,651 ,188 3,92 4,75 3 5
Total 165 3,39 1,135 ,088 3,22 3,57 1 6
291Multiple Comparisons
Alt i alt, hvor fornøyd er du med avisens nettaktiviteter i dag?
(1=lite fornøyd, 6=svært godt fornøyd)
Mean
Difference 95% Confidence Interval
(I) Opplag: (J) Oppplag: (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Under 5 000 5 000-10 000 -,097 ,220 1,000 -,68 ,49
10 000-40 000 -,302 ,217 1,000 -,88 ,28
Over 40 000 -1,145 * ,354 ,009 -2,09 -,20
5 000-10 000 Under 5 000 ,097 ,220 1,000 -,49 ,68
10 000-40 000 -,204 ,222 1,000 -,80 ,39
Over 40 000 -1,048 ,357 ,023 -2,00 -,09
10 000-40 000 Under 5 000 ,302 ,217 1,000 -,28 ,88
5 000-10 000 ,204 ,222 1,000 -,39 ,80
Over 40 000 -,843 ,355 ,113 -1,79 ,11
Over 40 000 Under 5 000 1,145 * ,354 ,009 ,20 2,09
5 000-10 000 1,048 ,357 ,023 ,09 2,00
10 000-40 000 ,843 ,355 ,113 -,11 1,79
Variable: All in all, how satisfied are you with the newspaper’s online activities today?
Discussion
Arguably, the newspapers perceive the use of the Internet as an opportunity, but it is not
quite as clear whether they want to take this opportunity and use it to develop new busi-
ness areas, or primarily to recruit new readers to the print edition.
An important indicator is that only 5 % of the top executives respond that the primary
role of the online commitment is to provide the company with new revenue sources,
even though 40 % see this as a secondary goal. But both as main and partial role, this
factor is sixth and second to last in the ranking.
This may indicate that the role as Defender still has a strong hold in the newspaper
organizations. Business development in this branch is often done at the corporate level
or by constructing local superstructures in the forms of media houses where newspaper,
local radio and local television are sister activities in a strategy to keep intruders off the
dominant position that local newspapers have managed to establish in the advertising
market. This is enhanced by advertising networks that enable them to compete on the
national and regional market as well, and if necessary by establishing free newspapers
to produce reach or prevent new start ups.
With a historical background such as this, it might not come as a surprise that online
activities are largely considered a defensive strategy. Almost half of the respondents use
the online editions primarily for the purpose of “defending the market position among
readers and advertisers” (23 %), “marketing the print paper (12 %), or “providing the
paper/company with a contemporary image” (8 %).
Seen in relation to the results of the multiple-choice option, a clear image is form-
ing of online editions as having many different and partly contradictory roles at the same
time, thereby increasing the complexity when strategies are to be operationalized. The
clear desire to be able to charge users is contrasted to the desire to use the Internet to
recruit young target groups for the print paper.
292This lack of clarity is, however, not new. “Fear, uncertainty and doubt” were, accord-
ing to New York Times columnist Denise Caruso, the most important driving forces for
the newspaper business when they plunged into the online adventure without established
business models to which to refer. In an article in the Columbia Journalism Review in
1997, she congratulated the Silicon Valley strategists in succeeding in creating an im-
age of reality in which media companies worldwide saw the need to hurl themselves onto
a train which was about to leave the platform.
“Show me the money!” was her provocative title, making a reference to another con-
temporary cultural expression from Southern California (Caruso 1997). Now, increas-
ing numbers of large newspapers can show that they make good money on online activi-
ties, but insecurity still marks the business.
A probable partial explanation for this is that circulation figures for print papers are
a source of stress. In Norway, the total newspaper circulation has been down six years
in a row, and nothing suggests that this decline will turn.
This may indicate that many papers, both today and ten years ago, act in a way that
may fall into the Reactors category. When top executives are only partly content with
online activities, this may suggest that the formula is yet to be found and that the bal-
ance between traditional and new activities in an Analyzer model has not been estab-
lished in a satisfactory way.
Miles and Snow (2003:93) identify three main reasons why an organization acts as
Reactor:
1. Top management may not have clearly articulated the organization’s strategy.
2. Management does not fully shape the organization’s structure and processes to fit a
chosen strategy.
3. There is a tendency for management to maintain the organization’s strategy-structure
relationship despite overwhelming changes in environmental conditions.
Top executives at the largest newspapers are more content with the situation, and a
characteristic corroborating this is that they have taken structural moves to develop an
Analyzer approach. The approach is realized by establishing separate daughter or sis-
ter companies to run and develop new media activities. At the previous turn of the cen-
tury, some of these new companies had ambitions to go in the direction of Prospectors,
but despite several attempts, it turned out to be the related online newspaper concept that
received attention. In this sense, these companies also represent the mere partial estab-
lishment of an Analyzer position for the activities of the media house.
It is also necessary to problematize the role of journalism in a media channel that, in
the opinion of many respondents, has the purpose of promoting the print paper (main
function: 12 %, partial function 62 %), or providing the paper/company with a contem-
porary image (main function: 12 %, partial function 52 %). Is there room for original
critical and investigative journalism in such a context, or is this to be considered adver-
tising?
This survey represents a pre-analysis of this market, and additional research will
further explore these circumstances by investigating individual companies’ choices of
structure and processes.
293Conclusion
The newspapers are in a pressed situation of circulation decline. This is partly a con-
sequence of increased Internet usage, a development the papers themselves have helped
push forward. Thus, they have influenced their environment in such a way as to chal-
lenge their own core activity, while at the same time being well positioned in new media.
However, they have not succeeded in finding a balanced focus between traditional and
new activities. It seems as though newspaper executives find it hard to respond effi-
ciently to the insecurity created as a result of changes in the environment.
It is still not clear what may be the answer to the question: “What kind of strategic
role do the online newspapers play?” Even though only 3 per cent answer that “explor-
ing new opportunities in new media” is the primary function15 of the online newspaper,
it nevertheless seems as though that description may best summarize the situation of
many players after ten years. Fear, uncertainty and doubt are still part of the newspaper
business.
Notes
1. Raymond E. Miles and Charles C. Snow initially published the book Organizational Strategy,
Structure, and Process in 1978 through McGraw-Hill, New York. Twenty-five years later, it was repu-
blished in the series “Stanford Business Classics” by Stanford University Press.
2. The background overview is based on Krumsvik, Ottosen and Steensen: ”Et historisk perspektiv på
nettavispublisering og dens konsekvenser for endring av journalistrollen og redaksjonelle prosesser i
en digital medieutviklling” (A historical perspective on online newspaper publishing and its
repercussions on changing the role of the journalist and editorial processes in the development of di-
gital media), paper presented at the KML Conference at Jæktvollen, Norway 25-26. May 2005.
3. A joint venture between Telenor and Posten.
4. Internet start up established in the Informatics Building at the University of Oslo 12th December 1991,
and purchased by Schibsted-gruppen 1st November 1995. Changed its name to Schibsted Nett.
5. Dagens Næringsliv 9 March 1995: ”Elektronisk Dagblad var først – igjen”
6. Dagens Næringsliv 14 March 1995: ”Dagbladet ikke først”
7. Dagens Næringsliv 9 October 1995: ”Papirløs tabloid”
8. Medieverden nr. 29/1999: ”Nettaviser går sine egne veier” (Online newspapers going their own ways)
and nr. 9/2001: ”Nettavis-fokus på bunnlinjen” (Online newspapers focusing the bottom line).
9. TNS Gallup ”Mediebarometer” 2004
10. Excerpts from the articles “Eksklusiv umulighet” (Exclusive impossibility) 11.03.05 and “Ferdig med
eksperimentene” (Done with experimenting) 14.04.05 in Dagens Næringsliv.
11. Jupiter Research: ”European Digital Life Index, 2005” EUH05-C01.
12. Dagens Næringsliv 11. September 2004: ”Nett vest”
13. The survey was conducted using the software tool Questback and analyzed using SPSS 12.0.1 for
Windows.
14. The alternatives are developed based on the reasons given by participants throughout the ten-year-long
duration of the online newspapers’ existence, recorded from my own experience from managerial
positions in the period 1995-2001 (VG Online: Project Manager, Schibsted Nett: Editor, Scandinavia
Online: Managing Editor, Dagbladet.no: Editor and Manager, DB Medialab: Publisher and CEO) and
then as corporate strategist (A-pressen and TV 2 Group) and observer – with a few guest appearances
as a consultant.
15. 30 % mention this as a partial function, but it is still the least important.
References
Caruso, D. (1997) Show me the Money! How the FUD Factor has Online News in its Thrall. New York:
Columbia Journalism Review July/August 1997.
Chandler, A.D. Jr. (1962) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial
Enterprise. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Chyi, Hsiang Iris and Lasorsa, Dominic L. (2002) ‘An
294Explorative Study on the Market Relation Between Online and Print Newspapers’, Jounal of Media
Economics. 15(2002)2, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 91-106.
Deuze, M. (2001) Online Journalism: Modelling the First Generation of News Media on the World Wide
Web. First Monday, 6(2001)10 (October).
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., and Black, W. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.) Prentice Hall.
Hambrick, D. (2003) ‘Foreword to the Classic Edition’, in Miles, R. and Snow, C. (2003) Organizational
Strategy, Structure, and Process. Stanford Business Classics. Stanford University Press.
Høst, S. (2000) Avisåret 1999 – Nye gratisaviser, flere aviser på Internett. Rapport 2/2000. Fredrikstad:
Institutt for Journalistikk.
Høst, S. (2004) Avisåret 2003 – Farvel til fullformatet? Revidert utgave. Rapport 2/2004. Fredrikstad:
Institutt for Journalistikk.
Kolo, C. and Vogt, P. (2004) Traditional Media and Their Internet Spin-Offs: An Explorative Study on Key
Levers for Online Success and the Impact of Offline Reach, St. Gallen: The International Journal on
Media Management, 6(2004)1&2.
Miles, R. and Snow, C. (2003) Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. Stanford business classics.
Stanford University Press. [Originally Published in 1978. New York: McGraw-Hill]
Picard, R. (2003) Cash Cows or Entrecôte: Publishing Companies and Disruptive Technologies. Trends in
Communication; 11(2003)2, p.127.
Picard, R. (2000) Changing Business Models of Online Content Services – Their Implications for Multi-
media and Other Content Producers. St. Gallen: The International Journal on Media Management,
2(2000)2, 60–68.
Porter, M. (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York:
The Free Press.
Rasmussen, T. (2002) Nettmedier. Journalistikk og medier på Internett. Bergen:Fagbokforlaget.
295You can also read
